(Add, answer, and discuss study questions for this author and reading)

• What does Machiavelli mean when he says that new states “are acquired either with the arms of others or with one’s own” (from The Prince, Chapter 1 in Brown et al., p. 257)?

He writes that a specific "dominion" (ruled by a prince or a Republic) is either acquired "by the arms of the prince himself, or others". This probably means that a dominion either 'conquered' by a internal political and military movement (a coup?) or by external forces, a military invasion from another dominion.

When Machiavelli writes about acquiring states by the force of one's own arms, he means the armies controlled by the prince and when he talks of the arms of others he means mercenaries or foreign troops. Consider the point that Machiavelli is trying to make is one of control: who controls your army? After all, armies are just men who hqappen to obey your commands - xmarquez Aug 14, 2008

• The following questions relate to the analysis of "mixed principalities" in chapter 3 of The Prince summarized above:
  • Why does Machiavelli believe that the new ruler is unable to satisfy the expectations of “friends” of the takeover in order to ensure stability in the “limb” principality? Is it because he believes that human beings, regardless of what they have, constantly aspire to having more? In other words, is he saying that the “very natural problem” mentioned above perpetually revisits the “limb” principality, so that what we have here is a kind of circular dynamic—between the “very natural problem” (in relation to the citizenry) and the “natural and normal constraint” (in relation to the conquering ruler)—which leaves the “limb” constantly unstable?

Well, the new ruler is on the one hand seen as enemy by the former ruling parties, which is normal because he took off them the principality. On the other he is "not able to keep those friends who put you there because of your not being able to satisfy them in the ways they expected". Maybe one reason is that human beings constantly aspire to having more (as mentioned in the question). But there is more. The people are unhappy with their ruler and filled with hope, but soon have to notice that the new ruler is repressing "those who have submitted to him with his soldiery and with infinite other hardships which he must put upon his new acquisition". So yes, it is a kind of 'circular dynamic', but no, that does not mean the new principality is constantly unstable, when the new ruler is following Machiavelli's 'instruction' to rule a new acquired principality (which he is describing afterwards in chapter 3).

• Why does Machiavelli focus his argument only on the mixed principality situation, i.e., why has he isolated out a brand new principality from his analysis (except that he appears to agree that the “very natural problem” applies to both types of new principalities)? Put another way, why would the same issues not arise in a brand new principality situation?

A brand new principality would mean that there is no ruling class that has to be 'chased' by the new ruler, so there isn't the threat of the former rulers. The new ruler isn't destroying any ruling system, so his administration will be the first to rule the country. Furthermore the people might accept more easily the new ruler as legitimate ruler, so he wouldn't be forced to use repressive tools to govern the people (or less as in a mixed principality).

• Indeed, why would they not arise in the case of a hereditary principality, e.g., isn’t it also susceptible to Machiavelli’s “very natural problem” or, put differently, why does human nature ostensibly differ for Machiavelli in the alternate cases? Does the answer have something to do with the fact that a “limb” principality is the subject of a foreign conquest? Or is Machiavelli simply indicating that the degree of difficulty in ruling successfully is a relative thing, with rule over an annexed territory being relatively more complex?
• In this regard, does Machiavelli’s analysis predict the likely outcome for the American invasion and occupation of Iraq?
• What is the problem with "new principalities"? Can we find a modern example of this problem?

The problem with 'new principalities' is in how they were established because that influences whether they are kept. Unlike an existing dominion, which has some legitimacy from traditions and customs, a new state does not. Therefore the prospective ruler must stake his (her) claim to be the proper authority. If this done by the prince's own forces and political virtue (virtu) then the claim to govern will be strong. A new territory which is claimed via a mixture of virtu, foreign armies and luck (fortuna) will be easily won but just as easily lost. A state won by chance alone will be very easily won and lost. This in turn means that a new ruler must act ruthlessly to consolidate their power, and of course the result of this is to alienate the people and create enemies. In the modern context we can look at the decolonisation period during the middle of the 20th century when the European powers withdrew from their empires around the world. The resulting political power vacuums gave rise to a number of dictators, e.g Idi Amin. While maybe, technically, these may not be 'new states' in the sense that they were not forged out of a new territorial claim, they fulfill the idea of a new principality in that existing rulers and political administration left (sometimes peacefully, sometimes not), and a new regime took over.

• Are rulers ever forced to injure their subjects? Is Machiavelli right about this?

According to Machiavelli, a prince could be forced to injure his subjects. He stated that cruelty can work to gain glory. The injured subject could be an opposition that needed to be crushed in order to remain in power. Machiavelli makes it clear that cruelty must not lead to hatred because if the prince is hated then his power is in danger. There are certain characteristics necessary to be a good prince, and these include the ability to kill or torture. Most of the traits that Machiavelli suggests are particular to gaining glory (such as determination and perseverance).

Machiavelli may be right in saying that a ruler is sometimes forced to injure his subjects. If the goal of a prince is glory above and beyond power, then killing may be necessary. As discussed in the lecture, people are more likely to forgive the murder of their parents over the seizing of their property, so killing a subject is a viable option for a prince. A lesser evil can be used to do a greater good. Is Machiavelli especially concerned with the greater good? What evidence do we have of this? - xmarquez Aug 14, 2008

• What might be Machiavelli's recommendation for the Americans in Iraq?

It might be too late for America to have followed a Machiavellian path in Iraq, and it may also be difficult to apply Machiavellian principles now. They accomplished the shock and awe of a swift and overwhelming victory (though not with any deliberate examples of cruelty as could be used effectively according to Machiavelli), but perhaps failed to accomplish the 'bewildered and satisfied' part from Wednesdays 13th's lecture. Rather than dealing with cases such as Abu Ghraib swiftly and decisively, there were attempts at a cover up, media fudging, denying of responsibility, followed by prolonged investigation processes that only served to further cause hatred among the populace. According to Machiavelli you want to be feared, not 'hated', but it's apparent you can accomplish both at once.

Also, the addition of religious diversity into the mix (Shiite majority, Sunni minority) makes it extremely difficult to reach any sort of stability, Machiavellian or otherwise. Isn't this sort of like the situation Machiavelli describes for France, not in terms of religious diversity but in terms of the number of power centers? What does he recommend then? - xmarquez Aug 14, 2008 Machiavelli seems to recommend holding down that territory with strong authority until memory of past greatness with which the people might attatch themselves to is long gone (Chp5) (though this might contradict some of what he writes on conquest and colonisation). This is what he states using the Romans as his example as a lesson for what to do in his contemporary France. According to Plutarch Caesar did however kill something like a million Gauls and enslave another million more (this is probably not too embellished), which may have had something to do with it. Similarly with Machiavelli's other example, Alexander the Great destroyed and slaughtered whole towns and resettled them with more useful peoples (see Tyre, Gaza) when they did not submit. In the Bactrian campaigns (Afghanistan) Alexander solved the gureilla warfare from the mountains problem (which seems relevant) by simply killing everyone, though it took him as long to do this as to conquer the Persian empire. Perhaps electronic media which can show the world these things immediately (and show you both sides) make it impossible to ever hold down anything in this way.

In chapter 3, Machiavelli gives a precise and longer description how a 'conquerer' should rule a new country. Transfering these description to the American invasion and occupation of Iraq the Americans did it all wrong in Machiavelli's terms. "Although one may be very strong in armed forces, yet in entering a province one has always need of the goodwill of the natives" writes M. he later in chapter Number? - xmarquez Aug 14, 2008 describes how it is also important to keep its alliances in the country to rule it successfully. The Americans conquered quickly Iraq, and certainly had in the beginning the support of the "natives" but lost this support through their behavior while ruling the country. In Machiavelli's time a leader of one country/state/principality conquered other countries to enlarge his power or wealth, not to bring a better life to the conquered people But Machiavelli thinks this is the only purpose? Doesn't he suggest in book I chapter 10 of the Discourses that the people who deserve praise are those who found stable republics? - xmarquez Aug 14, 2008. Assuming that the Americans invaded Iraq for the purpose the to get the country's oil, M. would have probably have advised the Americans to kill Saddam and his clan, but to rely on his administration to govern the country and to maintain little military forces at "one or two places, which may be as keys (=oilfields) to the state". This would be cheaper and more efficient for the Americans than a large occupation of the country, as M. writes "But in maintaining armed men in place of colonies one spends more...so that the acquisition turns into a loss...". The underlying problem for the Iraq situation is that it is not meant to be a conquest - Machiavelli doesn't have much to say on 'Peacekeeping operations'.

• What are Machiavelli's recommendations to the aspiring prince?

In The Prince Machiavelli gives advice to aspiring leaders (particularly for dictators). He states that good men can command a bad regime Isn't h saying the opposite? You need bad men for a flourishing state? - xmarquez Aug 14, 2008 so a good ruler must learn how not to be a good man. This aspect of his argument is criticized and thought to be a sort of teaching of evil. More evidence from the text, please! - xmarquez Aug 14, 2008

An aspiring leader is more challenged by the notion of becoming a ruler rather than the actual position of ruler possessing the power. The prince must not be hated by the people. For him to be liked as a ruler he should provide generosity and liberality, however this forces taxation and an inevitable dislike towards the Prince. Nevertheless, Machiavelli believes that a reputation for parsimony will be liked by the people.
In regards to mercy, Machiavelli states “no prince should mind being called cruel for what he does to keep his subjects united and loyal”.

Machiavelli observed that men are happy as long as they have their property. A price should respect this. Also, a prince should meet the needs of the nobles, so that he does not have any future competitors (for the position of ruler).

• “The answer is of course, that it would be best to be both loved and feared. But since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved.”

• Do we have modern examples where this advice would be useful? Should politicians compete to offer benefits to the public (e.g., a gas tax holiday in the USA), or should they not mind being called "stingy" by not providing such benefits? Would our political life be better if we followed Machiavelli's advice?

• What are Machiavelli's recommendations to the lawgiver for a republic?
• Should such a lawgiver strive to make the city as harmonious as possible?
• How do his recommendations differ from those of the people we have read so far?

Machiavelli differs from others that we have read so far becasue he believes that for a community to live in harmony and peace there has to be some disharmony. "The point of politics is to manage disharmony for great ends". As other people recommend that politics are there to create harmony ad peace with in a community/city. Also Machiavelli recommends for a good regime that does not mean that the leader/soverign has to be a good man. Not all good men make good leaders. Others have said that for a good regime you need a good man to lead a city.

• What should be the goal of the prince? Is there a difference here between Machiavelli and people like Aristotle and Aquinas?

The difference between Machiavelli and Aristotle and Aquinas is he thinks there is no moral in politics Is this really so clear? Couldn't one say that there is a different morality in politics for Machiavelli, not that there isn't any? - xmarquez Aug 7, 2008. Thus for Machiavelli politics should be thought that the way they are and not the way they should be not quite, but in any case why? - xmarquez Aug 7, 2008. Machiavelli’s thought about politics are real politics: what a prince have to do in order to preserve his power and kingdom Just his power? Why then does Machiavelli seem to prefer republican form of government to principalities? - xmarquez Aug 7, 2008. Machiavelli aims for Princes to establish stable states that outlast themselves, so the lust for power appeals to Princes but will also lead to a long-lasting state if his advice is taken (Discourses will find reference later). Machiavelli thinks that philosophers should think more about real politics than stop looking for the perfect kingdom But why? - xmarquez Aug 7, 2008. There are these differences between those thinkers because Machiavelli has a different perspective about human nature. Other differences are also important - xmarquez Aug 7, 2008

• In The Prince Machiavelli seems to give recommendations to the aspiring dictator (prince); in The Discourses he seems to discuss ways in which "Republics" (more or less democratic governments) may be maintained. Is there a contradiction here? Is Machiavelli promoting liberty or its opposite?

Machiavelli believes that the best state is a stable state, one that will last through generations. A state that perseveres through trials and hardships is the fulfillment of a dream. Idealizing Rome, Machiavelli presents various methods to be resilient in the face of conflict. In The Prince, Machiavelli offers advice to the aspiring dictator. He tells them how to be the best dictator that they can be. In The Discourses, Machiavelli guides members of a republic toward furthering the stability of their state through their government. Both writings teach not how to trade in old tools for new ones but to hold onto your old tools of government. Machiavelli says to use the tool you already have. His writings offer a guide on how to use the preexisting tools to create or manipulate the current state into a more stable state. His ideas are not opposing when each audience that he writes to is confined to a particular set of tools.

• Is Machiavelli advocating the use of immoral means in politics? Why or why not? Is he right about this?
• Would a dictator like Hitler or Stalin earn Machiavelli's praise?

In some ways, I believe that Machiavelli would praise Hitler for his understanding of how cruelty can work to gain glory. Hitler used his cruelty to crush his opposition early on in his political career. However, I believe that Machiavelli would say Hitler's cruelty crossed a line that made his actions no longer advantageous. Hitler's cruelty eventually created hatred, and Machiavelli is very clear that if the ruler is hate then his power is in danger. I believe that Machiavelli idealizes certain character traits of Hitler such as his determination. Hitler was determined to gain power but not necessarily glory. You can gain power easily, but glory is a step above and beyond. Machiavelli believed in using the tools necessary to gain glory. If the tool was dishonesty but was in your self-interests then you should use it. Hitler, like Machiavelli, understood that sometimes a lesser evil can be used to do a greater good.

Hitler and Stalin both followed a few advices that Machiavelli is given in The Prince. In chapter 6 Machiavelli writes that the new ruler should "give up old alliances", which both did in a cruel way (e.g. Hitler killing his old friend Hanisch). But overall they both were certainly more hated than respected, so they Machiavelli would say they both failed to ruled successfully. The difference is of course, that Stalin survived long enough to die of natural cause at a ripe old age, and to pass his regime down, which is another Machivellian measure of success But consider again Book I, chapter 10 of the Discourses, where Machiavelli praises the founders of Republics and argues against the founders of tyranny. How do we reconcile that with his praise of Agathocles in chapter 8 of The Prince? - xmarquez Aug 14, 2008. Isn't it more against the founders of a heriditary tyranny? In any case he seems to be a bit contrary on what to make of the 'successful' Tyrannt, and it might simply come down to the two books being unreconcilible. In The Prince he states that what Agathocles "achieved cannot be attributed either to fortune or to genius" and that he believes "that this follows from severities being badly or properly used". A Tyranny lasts on the 'do all your evils at once so they need not be done again' principle that Machiavelli often repeats. From the Republic he says that the Emperor Severns had "very great good fortune and virtu, which two things are found together in few men." Perhaps to reconcile the two, Machiavelli is stating that the successful and long lived Tyrannt may be praised in his own way while the unsuccessful should be all the more condemned for his failure. Also of note is that the successful Tyrannts success is only really measured in terms of being a successful Tyrannt. Even the successful Tyrannt can lead his state to vice, ruin, etc, and so that is why the 'Good' emperors are good - they brought good to the state rather thhan just themselves.

Machivelli states that a strong ruler can be succeeded by a weak one, but a weak one cannot be succeeded by a weak one and still maintain the state. From this definition it would then seem that Stalin was at least a 'strong' ruler. Stalin followed numerous text-book Machiavellian practices as well, take his great purges for example: one of the three ways in which to occupy a territory is to eliminate it's inhabitants (Prince, Chp.4.)

• Would political life be improved if politicians were more Machiavellian?
• According to Machiavelli, what are the characteristics and qualities of the good prince? How are these qualities and characteristics pertinent to international politics? (Taken from POLS/Phil 2005 exam paper)

A good prince should possess “virtu” in order to control the “fortuna”. Machiavelli said that because many people think everything is controlled by “fortuna”(fortune). But a good politician knows that not everything is controlled by fortune, there is a fifty –fifty the other fifty is “virtu”. “Virtu” is the capacity of the politician to adapt him to every situation he faces. A good politician knows how to control the masses and how to keep his power and kingdom. For this reason: Machiavelli compares the equestrian art with the politics art. Also a good politician is no ruled by moral. For a politician there are not bad and good actions, there are only actions. According to Machiavelli all this thoughts apply to international politics because this field is ruled by power. So for this reason internal affairs are ruled by foreign policies. Machiavelli thinks that because a kingdom survives thanks to the foreign policies. And for this reason Machiavelli does not believe in just wars or unjust wars, there are only wars. Citations would help - xmarquez Aug 7, 2008

• Should there be limits to successful political behaviour such that civil society is not influenced by such 'morals'? What do you mean by "civil society"? - xmarquez Aug 13, 2008
• Do republics need religion? What kind of religion?
• What does Machiavelli think of Christianity?

Machiavelli believes that Christianity is a primarily a religion of the 'private' life, unsuited to form a basis or rallying point around which a republic can perform or operate. If one is a word for word good Christian, you would be rather pacifistic as you would 'turn the other cheek', a trait not admirable to Machiavelli, or useful to a Republic that would desire to continue existing.

• What constitutes a free regime, according to Machiavelli?
• What is a corrupt people, according to Machiavelli? What causes corruption?